Mr Danny YUNG
yung@zuni.org.hk
Chief Executive
Hong Kong Institute of Contemporary Culture
Mr Yung was born in Shanghai and moved to Hong Kong at the age of five. He studied Architecture at the University of California University, Berkeley, and Urban Design and Urban Planning at Columbia University.
In 1982, he founded Zuni Icosahedron, a Hong Kong art collective, and has been Artistic Director since 1985. His theatre works with Zuni have staged in Beijing, Berlin, Brussels, London, Munich, New York, Singapore, Taipei, Tokyo and many other cities. In 2000, Yung organized an eleven weeks Festivals of Vision, a cross-cultural festival and conferences in Berlin and Hong Kong, which involved 1000 artists and cultural practitioners from 35 cities in Asia and Europe.
In 1993, he was appointed by the governor of Hong Kong to the ‘Working Group’ which in 1995 became the Hong Kong Arts Development Council, a statutory body. He was reappointed to the Council in 2000. From 1997, Yung has initiated several important arts network in Asia - Asia Arts Net, Chinese City to City Cultural Forum, Asia Pacific Performing Arts Network. In 2002, he co-organized World Culture Forum, and became Vice-president in 2003.
He has also collaborated with UNESCO in initiating Arts in Education Observatory and the Centre for Intangible Cultural Heritage, and is one of the founders of the HKICC Lee Shau Kee School of Creativity.
SYNOPSIS
In Chinese, the term wen ti means “problem”. It has the same meaning of the term “questions.” If there is no problem, there is no need for us to have a gathering. So here are my questions.
Why do we need a world discourse while regional and local discourses are still problematic and not supported or initiated? What is the role and position of the government and corporate sector? Why are the first two sectors so short-term, events- oriented and lack of vision? How should the three sectors be truly interactive? What are the strategies to develop equal-base platform of the three sectors to discuss the issues on creativity? Can we do an in-depth comparative strategic study on such a subject?
Any new global meeting or organization venture is a critique of previous global meetings or existing organizations, so what is the constructive critique of previous global meetings (such as World Economic Forum, World Social Forum and World Cultural Forum etc) and existing global cultural organizations (such as UNESCO, world arts education networks, world arts council networks, world arts market networks etc)?
What are the problems and challenges on building of a visionary yet sustainable global cultural network and organization? How can the term “sustainability” not be in conflict with innovation, experimentation and creativity? How do we start with agenda building and not get caught up with “politically” superficial manifestoes? Can we start small? How do we build a truly creative yet pragmatic network/organization?
When can creativity also include holistic knowledge-based constructive critique and self critique whether in the classroom, forums, public hearings, media events and even private conversation? Will our closing session carry holistic knowledge-based constructive critique and self critique?
How do we bring creativity and critique into cross-cultural network building? What is the role of artists in strategic creative network building? What is the role of artists on enforcing public sphere? What is the role of artists in advocating for civil society? With rapid technologic, environmental and social development, will there be new space for artist - to be less as a product manufacturer and more a concept generator?
How do we break the myth that “systems” are conservative and “individuals” are creative? How do we cope with institutional culture which has gone conservative? How can institution upkeep its creative management and vision on creativity? How can the existing global cultural networks and organizations be more competent in coping with economic, political, technological, environmental, health, legal, third sectors and the education “systems”?
What is the definition and dialectics of a summit? Where do we go after dialogue? Can the summit be “creative?” Is the summit a “performance?” How can we overcome the cynicism? How can our dialogue provoke more creative thinking and follow-up action? Can we learn to be less self-gratifying? Is the cultural programming of the Summit only window dressing or entertainment? Should it provoke discussion? Why is the Summit only three days long? What are the expected outcome of concrete infrastructure building and program development from the Summit? How do we go from an open dialogue to long term collaboration and to join forces on self-help and helping each other?
Where are our next generations? Are they involved in this Summit? What do those under 18 think of our Summit? Who is our audience – the leaders or the masses?
In Chinese, the term xue wen means “knowledge”. It has the same meaning of the term “learning to ask questions.” If learning is still our primary concern, so what has gone wrong with our “systems” on learning? If we are here talking about arts, do we need to acquire the arts of asking?
榮念曾先生
榮念曾先生在1982年創立進念二十面體實驗劇團，一直擔任藝術總監。他的劇作曾在世界各地表演。2000年，他組織了一個為期十一週在香港和柏林舉行的跨文化節日及會議，共有35個城市及1000名文化人及藝術家出席。他曾獲委任為香港藝術發展局工作小組的成員。另外，他也是香港兆基創意書院的創辦人之一。他擁有加州柏克萊大學及哥倫比亞大學的學位。
簡介
在中文裡，「問題」一詞是難題、麻煩的同義詞。沒有問題，大家也不用來開會，所以筆者問：連地區性和本地的論說也有問題及不受支持重視，我們為什麼還需要全球性的論說？政府和商界的角色、立場是什麼？這兩個界別為什麼那麼短視和只看個別項目？官商民三個界別怎樣才可真正交流？可進行一個深入的對比策略性研究嗎？
過去的全球會議或機構要不是有不足，就不會開新的。那麼，我們對以前的全球會議如世界社會論壇及現存全球文化機構如UNESCO等有什麼建構性的批判？要建立有遠見又可持續的全球文化機構會遇上什麼問題和挑戰？怎樣才可成功建構議題而不停留在流於表面的政治宣言？
創意到什麼時候才可變成街知巷聞的整體知識型建構性批判？峰會會有這種收結嗎？峰會的定義和辯證法是什麼？對話之後又可做什麼？峰會可以「具創意」嗎？峰會是場作秀嗎？我們可如何激發更多創意思維及跟進工作？
我們的下一代在哪裡？我們的對象是誰？領袖還是群眾？
在中文裡，「學問」是知識， 也是「學會發問」的意思。若學習對於我們這麼重要， 究竟我們的教育制度出了什麼問題？如果我都齊集一起談藝術，我們又需不需要學習發問的藝術？
|
